Talk:Blind Fight
English Can the guys constantly correcting each others English please stop? You're adding nothing meaningful. Thorsson (talk) 15:39, October 19, 2013 (UTC) *And is pointing that out adding anything meaningful? GFallen (talk) 00:27, October 20, 2013 (UTC) *If it gets you to stop, yes.Thorsson (talk) 13:30, December 1, 2013 (UTC) *Maybe you as a native speaker can see through the meaning of every typed letter, but when I saw others refering to wiki articles and missing the point, I rewrote it. -GFallen Description The current description of Blind fight is incorrect, it currently reads: "Blind Fight increase your chance of hitting concealed creatures by 50% of their concealment value. For example a Displaced creature (50% concealment) is effectively reduced to 25% concealed, because you get a second attack roll against them for every swing. It only increases your chance your to hit with an attack. Blind Fight does not guarantee a hit against concealed opponents, it does not increase damage against concealed opponents, and it does not make you immune to flank attacks. It simply gives you a second chance to hit and prevents your opponent gaining a bonus to hit." However, what it does is it lets you reroll your miss chance, this has the effect of squaring the effective concealment of a target. If a target has 50% concealment, to miss said target one would have to fail both rolls, which has a probability of 0.5*0.5=0.25, hence 25% percent. Similarly if a target has 10% concealment (e.g. from Ghostly Visage), to miss said target one would have to fail both rolls, which has a a probability of 0.1*0.1=0.01, or 1%. By the formula suggested in the current description, a creature with Blind-Fight attacking another creature with 10% concealment would effectively be treated as having (0.1*0.5=0.05) 5% concealment, which is erroneous. Also the +2 bonus to hit that invisible creature should have against a sighted opponent was never implemented in NWN2, so there is no damage bonus which the feat negates. The in game description was copied from the PnP source. Please edit the entry accordingly Mithdradates 06:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :Please go to concealment and get that corrected too. Thanks.--Thorsson 19:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC) :"+2 to hit was never implemented in NWN2" Bullocks. It is. Just checked with combat debugging; an invisible character doesn't get it when the opponent has blind fight; when the opponent doesn't have it, it DOES get it. Here's the details of my test: :Hall of Training, Wandering Skald vs. Joe Average (has blind fight). :Improved Invisibility cast => skald does *not* deny Joe's Dodge/Dex, *nor* get a +2 bonus to AB. Strangely, Joe got -4 to attack (Can't see my target) a few times, after skald broke through Invis. :Ethereal cast => skald denies Joe's Dodge/Dex. :Thieving Bastard vs. Joe Average: same as the above. However both ethereal and invis allow for sneak attacks. :Now vs. a character without blind fight (spirit talker, combat dummy), things change. Invisibility *will* deny dodge/dex AND add +2 to AB. Ethereal remains the same. 15:05, May 6, 2012 (UTC) Touch attacks Does anyone actually know if this feat works ingame for ranged/melee touch? Did some tests with patch 1.23 on 50% concealed mobs, and still see only miss or hit... no two-roll miss/miss or miss/hit like it should be under the feat description. 23:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC) :You don't get a "two-roll" with melee attacks either. And yes, it works for touch attacks. GFallen (talk) 16:29, October 7, 2013 (UTC) Miss chance Blind fight does not remove the 50% miss chance blinded characters get. Source: http://nwn2customcontent.forumotion.com/t21-blind-fighting[[User:GFallen| GFallen]] 23:31, May 20, 2012 (UTC) Ranged "The invisible attacker’s bonuses do still apply for ranged attacks, however". Source: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/feats.htm#blindFight I've tested this, and it's also true in NWN2. GFallen 15:26, May 31, 2012 (UTC) Best part is that the above means you should have a ranged weapon equipped, not that you are attacking from a distance / outside of melee. GFallen 16:02, May 31, 2012 (UTC) Proposed description Blind Fight v2 Type of feat General Prerequisite None Required for None Specifics '''This feat helps the character's ability to defend when blinded or against invisible creatures and fight well against concealed creatures. So if attacked when blinded or by invisible creatures, those attacks will not receive the +2 AB bonus to hit the defender in melee. When fighting concealed creatures, the character gets to reroll its miss chance percentile one time to see if it actually hits. Red Dragon Disciples automatically gain this feat at 5th level. Clerics with the Darkness domain and Yuan-ti purebloods automatically gain this feat at 1st level. Fighters may select Blind Fight as one of their fighter bonus feats. '''Use Automatic Note Both the Manual and in game description is somewhat exaggerated and lacking in detail so the specifics has been revised to as above D&D Note Unlike 3.5e, Spells: True Strike, True Seeing and Blind Sight will have no effect against concealment. Some abilities may ignore or remove concealment, but with limitations - see Concealment NWN2 Tip This feat is highly recommended against concealed opponents and advisable to be taken as early as 5th ECL. Gameplay Blind Fight does not change a target's concealment, but instead gives a second roll on a miss due to concealment. This probability of missing a target is now effectively squared (reducing 50% to 25% and 10% to 1%). Only the +2 AB bonus for invisible melee attackers or when blinded is negated. Similar attacks from Ethereal Jaunt or stealth do not receive a +2 to AB; however sneak attacks from Ethereal Jaunt have poor response and may not always be successful. This feat also does not remove the 50% miss chance from being blinded. Ragimund (talk) 13:08, November 6, 2018 (UTC) revised Ragimund (talk) 09:50, February 3, 2020 (UTC) I suspect the carry over flatfooted comments from NWN are confused results by having Uncanny Dodge present when testing, they are separate results Blind Fighting only negates the +2 to hit for Invisible Atttackers. Suggest Uncanny Dodge for avoiding Flat footed from Invisibles. Ragimund (talk) Finally looked at blinded https://imgur.com/a/4jsrE7w as suggested on Uncanny Dodge. So being blind is the similar to fighting Invisibles, lose dex and dodge plus they get +2 to hit. However Blind Fighting only negates the +2 to hit, still lose the dex and dodge. (Unfortunately Uncanny Dodge doesn't help your dex or dodge when blind). So the value of Blind Fighting just went up a little. Although the loss of dex and dodge when blinded can be erratic, especially with See Invisible. True Seeing seems a reliable counter. As I'm understanding the original description somewhat better now, although its still misleading. So a revised description. Incorrect Notes relocated from main page '''(this is an important Feat and needs to be correct. We could also do better than the in game description) "This feat negates the +2 AB and flat-footed bonuses from opposing invisible (as under the effect of an Invisibility spell) creatures. This only affects melee attacks with melee weapons; ranged attacks do not apply no matter the distance they are made from. It has no effect against Ethereal Jaunt and stealth however, which still have flat-footed bonuses (although these abilities never offer a +2 to AB)." "This feat prevents one from losing AC (due to being caught flat-footed) when attacked by a hidden melee attacker, provided the attacker is heard. (If the attacker is spotted, the defender can avoid being flat-footed without this feat.) It does not, however, negate any other condition for being caught flat-footed, nor does it prevent the other effects of being flat-footed (such as being subject to sneak attacks)." ''Blind Fighting, is not a requirement for Listen nor does it effect detection or assist against being caught Flat Footed. But there are other feats that may do such. Does shark repellant work on the beach, or is there just no sharks out of the water?. Consider the parameters when testing, its easy to mistake one for another and take caution with module haks; as Mithdradates test above likely encountered.' Ragimund (talk) 08:17, January 31, 2020 (UTC)'